The question of replacing old houses with new ones is highly topical nowadays. It is considered by the great part of the society that everything should be renovated and refreshed including edifices. Their opponents claim that old constructions can possess crucial value for the culture, on the one hand, and are still occupied by people living in them. I prefer to agree with the latter point.
It's not a secret that constructions tend to be crashed and dilapidated over time. They change their shape becoming unsuitable for living and that is the first reason why they should be replaced with time. For example, if the roof of the construction is erased because of enduring action of sun or moisture this building cannot be exploited with the purpose of living. The next reason is the aesthetician one. Some buildings can be so ugly and unattractive that they just cannot answer new demands and tastes. Examples of those are soviet standard panel or brick residential 5-floors buildings, which are called "khrushchevki", which were built with thoughts of everything but aesthetic.
However, not all edifices deserve reconstruction or demolition. Some of them might be either of cultural significance or of a historical one. As an example, we can take printing yard on Nikolskaya Street in Moscow. It's a house that was constructed in the 19th century and this fact can be noticed if we look at the backside of the construction. It looks extremely decrepit and rundown in the background but this dilapidation has its own charm and emphasizes how ancient the building is. So, in my opinion, it should not be reconstructed or even restored. Furthermore, there might be not only historical or cultural reasons but humanistic ones. For instance, the building can be inhabited by families living there for years and refusing to leave their places. Of course, their desires should be taken into account as well. In many cases, it seems more rational to allow these people to stay in old edificies rather than organize their resettlement for financial reasons or for others.
To conclude, the answer to the question about managing the destinies of old constructions cannot be concrete and explicit. The decision to maintain old houses or to replace them with new ones should be based on common sense. However, I strongly believe that if there is an opportunity to preserve ancient constructions it should be done to save cultural heritage. 
The question of replacing  
old
  houses
 with new  
ones
 is  
highly
 topical nowadays. It  
is considered
 by the great part of the society that everything should  
be renovated
 and refreshed including edifices. Their opponents claim that  
old
  constructions
 can possess crucial value for the culture, on the one hand, and are  
still
 occupied by  
people
  living
 in them. I prefer to  
agree
 with the latter point.
It's not a secret that  
constructions
 tend to  
be crashed
 and dilapidated over time. They  
change
 their shape becoming unsuitable for  
living
 and  
that is
 the  
first
  reason
 why they should  
be replaced
 with time.  
For example
, if the roof of the  
construction
  is erased
  because
 of enduring action of sun or moisture this  
building
 cannot  
be exploited
 with the purpose of  
living
. The  
next
  reason
 is the  
aesthetician
 one.  
Some
  buildings
 can be  
so
 ugly and unattractive that they  
just
 cannot answer new demands and tastes. Examples of those are soviet standard panel or brick residential 5-floors  
buildings
, which  
are called
  "
 khrushchevki
 "
, which  
were built
 with thoughts of everything  
but
 aesthetic. 
However
, not all edifices deserve reconstruction or demolition.  
Some
 of them might be either of cultural significance or of a historical one. As an example, we can take printing yard on  
Nikolskaya
 Street in Moscow. It's a  
house
 that  
was constructed
 in the 19th century and this fact can  
be noticed
 if we look at the backside of the  
construction
. It looks  
extremely
 decrepit and rundown in the background  
but
 this dilapidation has its  
own
 charm and emphasizes how ancient the  
building
 is.  
So
, in my opinion, it should not  
be reconstructed
 or even restored.  
Furthermore
, there might be not  
only
 historical or cultural  
reasons
  but
 humanistic  
ones
.  
For instance
, the  
building
 can  
be inhabited
 by families  
living
 there for years and refusing to  
leave
 their places.  
Of course
, their desires should  
be taken
 into account  
as well
. In  
many
 cases, it seems more rational to  
allow
 these  
people
 to stay in  
old
  edificies
  rather
 than organize their resettlement for financial  
reasons
 or for others. 
To conclude
, the answer to the question about managing the destinies of  
old
  constructions
 cannot be concrete and explicit. The decision to maintain  
old
  houses
 or to replace them with new  
ones
 should  
be based
 on common sense.  
However
, I  
strongly
 believe that if there is an opportunity to preserve ancient  
constructions
 it should  
be done
 to save cultural heritage.